Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Neil wrote:
I have "lost" an army in the past, when PDF militia were phased out (serves my right for taking a back of the book army list from a bolt on minidex!). Chaos diehards really are not the only ones, but they seem to complain loudest!

And you didn't feel like fielding them as hardened veterans, basic infantry squads, conscripts, last chancers, or even kroot mercenaries in the IG 4th ed book? Or Penal legion, veterans, conscripts, or standard infantry squads in the current book?

Forgive me, I'm a bit lost here.

The people arguing that the 4th Ed Chaos Codex is a good Codex, what exactly are you arguing?

Are you arguing that Chaos players didn't lose their lists?
That they didn't lose variety/options/choice?
That they didn't have armies invalidated?
That the Earth is indeed flat?
That you understood Gav when he spent a whole paragraph crapping on about icecream, completely missing the point of my analogy whilst simultaneously not responding to it at all?

Help me out here.

I'm arguing why it's a good codex for ME. You feel it's a horrid codex in general. It is not HORRID in general as that would imply it's a negative codex for EVERYONE who plays Chaos.

Those of us who like it do not feel it hurt US any. Just as loudly as you can yell "4.5 CSM CODEX IS GAK" I can yell "THE 3.5 CSM CODEX IS GAK". Neither one of us is right as not everyone shares similar views.

Polonius, are you saying Neil could use "counts as" for his army? Funny how when those of us, like JHDD and I say "use counts as for your old cult terminators and call them NORMAL terminators or "counts as" bolt weapons for those with Sonic terminators" we get shouted down and told we are drinking the kool-aid that GW is passing out.

How is it that one set of players are expected to use counts as but another set say "we shouldn't have to, GW should just make a codex with all of our models in it?"

This baffles me.

Both points are fair, it isn't the worst codex to ever be written (sucky dreadnoughts aside). It is also far, far from the best codex ever to be written, but in your "counts as" line of thinking you must concede that an awful lot of stuff was made "counts as" in one go with a few strokes of the pen?

My Night Lords army now "counts as" Black legion with stupid helmets, have an extra fast attack unit to swap around with some more black legion CSM and my furies lost their wings.

Not too much to cry about really...but combined with all the other people simultaneously having their little chaos flame's extinguished? This is a whinge of galactic proportions!

Yeah but still my chief complaint which is exactly what HMBC was saying, and I still think he has a really strong analogy.

With the except of the Prince, the Obliterators, the Possessed, the Defiler, and the really mediocre demons, you might as well be looking at a separate loyalist chapter codex. Hell, even the space wolves look like they have more flavor and variety than Chaos. Which is just wrong.

Chaos is CHAOS! It's all about customization to a ridiculous degree. You are the immortal reavers of a dark and burning galaxy! Every soldier in your army is a living nightmare.

The fact that my Demon armored, kai gun toting, demonic visaged, winged, monstrous demon prince got mashed into a simple 'monstrous creature' with the options - wings or no wings, mark or no mark, psychic power? (y/n) is an obvious and legitimate cause for complaint. It doesn't really matter that a lot of the stat options/gifts have been mashed into the Prince profile already - the fact is that the option has been completely taken away from you, and you are presented with a demon prince which is IDENTICAL to the other 50,000 demon princes out there. In fact, since you'd be stupid to take anything but a lash or warptime prince, he's pretty much going to AUTOMATICALLY be identical to almost 100% of the other princes out there. That's not what chaos is about. That's not why I started playing Iron warriors.

Used to run with two rhino squads (with mutated hull) with furious charge, a lord with a darkblade and demonic strength, kai gun prince, chosen, all ridiculously customized with infiltrate, 2 x havocs with tank hunters, predator, basilisk (unusuble now), obliterators.

Now it's just 3 x bland rhino squads with meltas, obligatory fist champ, bland demon prince, bland Lash sorceror, obliterators, defiler.

Blah.

I just wanted to say...I'm kind of a moron and can't really hold up well at all in a debate. But even I think "We couldn't write a good Chaos codex because it would be 300+ pages long!" is pretty damn weak.

Hell, the new one is thicker than 3.5. And 3.5 had both Legion rules and god-specific daemons in it.

And that, Sid, is why Gav's answer was a load of nonsense - nothing but one GIANT false dilemma.

In this particular debate, it confuses me how people who like the current Chaos Space Marine Codex miss/ignore why people who like the previous editions' versions are a bit miffed with it.

It wasn't all about power gaming and Iron Warriors people...

Big thread, lots of tangents, gave me something to say.

Polonius, it seems GW decided they wanted IG sgts to go back to being like the old British way of fighting. Leader has a pistol and sword, directs the troops. Just like all of the 2nd ed IG unit boxes.
Also, this could have come from the writers bosses, that they didn't want to see sgts contributing to the rapid firing.

@CSM subject. The reason for the loss of infiltrate as a troop option is obvious. Now that all infiltrators can outflank, they didn't want to give an entire army the ability to do so.
Most of the rest can be covered by what could have been Gav's design brief. This is what I think could have been what Gav was given to work with.

The new Codex:CSM must:
1. Have no sub-lists. Cannot be supported by the minis line at this time.
2. No cross codex references. loss of trackable sales (?)
3. No marked Daemons. We have a Daemon Codex in the works and we can't have differing stats between books. (Already an issue).
4. No cults outside of a single Troop choice. We need that design room for Legion books in 5-10 years. (Pessimistic view).
5. Keep the wargear choices stripped down because that is how Jervis did DA and that is the current direction. (Which changed after C:CSM, of course).
Plus, Gav was leaving of his own accord before the book was even released. (I believe Dark Elves was his last project).

Now if these were the parameters most of us were given, I bet the book would have come out nearly the same.

Also keep in mind, Jervis seemed to be pushing to get the game back to early 3rd ed levels of complexity in the Codices.
I base this on his comments in WD and the results of the DA, Eldar, and Chaos book. Eldar is deeper, just because Phil Kelly seems a bit more creative than Gav or Jervis when it comes to Codices/Armybooks.

skrulnik wrote:Polonius, it seems GW decided they wanted IG sgts to go back to being like the old British way of fighting. Leader has a pistol and sword, directs the troops. Just like all of the 2nd ed IG unit boxes.
Also, this could have come from the writers bosses, that they didn't want to see sgts contributing to the rapid firing.

I very much doubt that.

It is far more likely that it was simply an oversight on Arby's part. I do not think that any conscious choice or thought went into stopping Sergeants from having Lasguns as I don't think it ever entered Arby's mind at any stage - were you to bring it up with him it is likely he would say something along the lines of "Oh really? Could they get them in the last Codex? I just thought Sergeants always had the Pistol/CCW combo.". He saw Sergeants, and armed them with what the studio models had. And I certainly cannot imagine the 'bosses' having even the slightest bit of interest in whether a single Lasgun contributes to rapid fire, or even remembered/know that the previous Codex allowed for the option.

I like and played the previous codex.

I like and played the current codex.

I think Chaos got out of control with 3.5. Sure all the crazy customizations where there, but really only fell down a few lines when it came to competitive gaming. I for one was tired of Deamon Princes that I couldn't tell what they had until I beat it out of my opponent and by then it was in my lines.

The current codex goes along way to make most of the choices as viable as possible in a list with so many units. Hell, I have seen more TS and KB in armies this edition then the last, which is a win in my eyes.

The only real complaint, and I think is the source for much of the complaint is that the codex feels 90% done. Especially in light of the current codexs.

Would people really feel robbed if:

1. Terminators and Chosen had access to Marks and Icons?
2. Greater and Lesser Deamons had a Mark system?
3. There where a few special characters the modified the FOC.

Really, I feel those are the only things that are sorely needed to maintain the feel of Chaos and match it with the current system.

But I will still contend that the current codex is not bad. A hard pill to swallow, maybe. But not horrid, as HBMC claims.

It could be worse, Gav could be defending the previous Eldar codex.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

skrulnik wrote:Polonius, it seems GW decided they wanted IG sgts to go back to being like the old British way of fighting. Leader has a pistol and sword, directs the troops. Just like all of the 2nd ed IG unit boxes.
Also, this could have come from the writers bosses, that they didn't want to see sgts contributing to the rapid firing.

I very much doubt that.

It is far more likely that this is simply an oversight on Arby's part. I do not think that any conscious choice went into stopping Sergeants having Lasguns because I don't think it ever entered Arby's mind at any stage. He saw Sergeants, and armed them with what the studio models had. I cannot imagine the 'bosses' having even the slightest interest in whether a single Lasgun contributes to rapid fire, or even remembered/know that the previous Codex allowed for the option.

I think skrulnik's reason is definitely possible and I don't think its an 'oversight' since there isn't a single IG leader that can be equipped with a lasgun IIRC from platoon commanders to commissars so its not just sergeants. Here's some more possible reasons why sergeants/leaders don't have lasguns:

1. Minor balance/gameplay issue due to orders like 'first rank fire second rank fire'; there's potentially a lot of lasgun fire already so the author/development process might have made this change for this reason in addition to others. Worthy to note that commanders and the like can still purchase rapid-firing bolters so they seem aware of the two handed weapon option. I wasn't a big fan of this change but 'meh' its pretty minor and orders make it worth it - I'm thinking they made this change specifically for huge combined platoon squads since 100 shots is siginficantly larger than 90 in an all lasgun scenario.

2. Fluff like mentioned earlier, this might be the author's and GW's new approach to IG leaders since they also added in the 'orders' system which goes with this designer flow

3. Get people to buy new command squad boxes for leader bitz

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think one reason people dislike the new codex so much is because it's not more powerful than the previous one. Yes, yes, I've argued for years that it's not about power, and arguably the best army build for the last two years has been Twin lash, but hear me out.

When a new codex comes out, most of the time it replaces a book that has faded dramatically in power, such that while it may have a few fun lists, it has one or maybe two punchy power builds left in in. You know that when a codex is redone some of the small little options are going to be re-shuffled, that some army archtypes might be eliminated, but they'll be replaced with new ones, that are fun and powerful. With the chaos book, it had huge options, many of which were quite strong. The new codex adds one really strong new build, eliminates a bunch of power, elminates a bunch of options, and then walks away.

In short, you can get people excited about a codex in two ways: by making it strong, or by allowing interesting new army builds. It's not that the chaos book doesn't have strong lists, or interesting lists, it's just that it has fewer of each compared to what it replaced. Sure, many people find the lists playable now more interesting than under 3.5, and good for them.

Now, the 3.5 codex was oven OTT, and certainly didn't need to become more powerful. Maybe there really was no way to balance it back to the pack while retaining options; but I contend that they could have done a better job with it. This was the only time we've ever seen a codex struck down while still in it's prime, and I think that's a bigger factor than most people acknowledge, myself included.

Even worse, paradoxically, the current book didn't weather the switch to 5th particularly well. Only one unit can outflank, thousand sons were good until the new cover rules made them inferior pound for pound to noise marines, KPs make spawn even worse, etc. The old 3.5 book could make some really interesting and killer 5th edition lists: all outflanking alpha legion, Word bearers demon bombs, etc.

I agree Polonus.

Chaos and Eldar are in the same boat, I think. They both have decent codexes but really suffered in balance between editions. Leaving them with the "few good builds" syndrome.

I really wish GW could acknowledge that with light releases for them, fix up their rules a little. Come up with a new Plastic Kit and/or unit, and they have a cheap release that generates revenue.

OTOH, the new IG aren't any more powerful than before. Also, IG are more expensive, as you need to buy Chimeras, where Drop was FREE.

For Apoc use (my primary game), the new IG are clearly *worse*. Massed Drop Plasma & Drop Melta & Drop Scoring is quite useful in Apoc, and Vehicle Squadrons aren't needed due to the Apoc removal of the FOC.

So there should be easily as much whining over IG.

I like the Ork Codex...I'm going back there... :p

Not really, cause most IG players are used to being shafted every edition. It comes with the army.

JohnHwangDD wrote:OTOH, the new IG aren't any more powerful than before. Also, IG are more expensive, as you need to buy Chimeras, where Drop was FREE.

For Apoc use (my primary game), the new IG are clearly *worse*. Massed Drop Plasma & Drop Melta & Drop Scoring is quite useful in Apoc, and Vehicle Squadrons aren't needed due to the Apoc removal of the FOC.

So there should be easily as much whining over IG.

But for the way most people play, the IG book is clearly better. Man spam, mechanized, armor heavy, tournaments, campaigns, city fight, planetstrike: all are more powerful with the new book. Outside of a few builds, IG are far more powerful than before.

I'm bummed because my beloved all infantry simply aren't very good, although that has as much to do with 5th as the codex. But I'm happy because mechanized vets are super good.

Polonius wrote:
I mean, if your army was hosed, I'm sorry and obviously I'm not going to change your mind. But I think if you spend some time with the codex, you'll see that there are ways to really build some interesting armies.

I can use this same argument for C:CSM.

It's reassuring to see that any attempt at being conciliatory is meet with a cheap shot.

For a guy that went on a soap box about my being disingenuous, you're being really snotty.

Ozy: I agree that many different lists can be made with C:CSM - but few of those will be as effective as the Rhino Burrito rush (add filling and sauce to taste). This is because the choices given in the codex have a few glaring issues:

1. All the troops operate in the 'close to mid' range, be it shooting or hth. They have no option for fast moving troops outside of rhinos, nor do they have any differing deployment modes for their core units.

2. The above is exacerbated by their inability to get any sort of heavy weapon density due to the new 10men:1 heavy weapons in troops and the relocation of all their heavy weapons dense units to heavy support. The only other places to get (non autocannon) heavy weapons outside of those two areas are on the ever unstable Dreadnought or on chosen - neither of which are efficient choices (the latter due to it largely filling the same role (and having the same durability) as basic CSM, except more expensive and not scoring) This further reinforces the "up close" playstyle of Chaos.

Long story short - Chaos can't outmaneuver its opponents as its scoring units must rely on rhinos for transport - lacking options for deepstrike / infiltrate / outflank. They can't stay static and outshoot them either, due to the above problem with being unable to assemble enough firepower due to codex limitiations. This leaves the "dudes in rhinos" tactic that most Chaos lists fall back on.

It certainly isn't the be-all and end-all for Chaos, but it is by far the playstyle best suited for the units provided.

Polonius wrote:It's reassuring to see that any attempt at being conciliatory is meet with a cheap shot.

For a guy that went on a soap box about my being disingenuous, you're being really snotty.

How was that a cheap shot? In a thread with most people saying how much they hate the new Chaos dex, when people say the same about the IG codex you reply with what I quoted. Frankly I agree with you, I just want to know why it is ok to say that to Eldar and IG players and not ok to say that to Chaos players? Is it because there are more of them and therefore they are louder?

I was not trying to be snotty, if that's how I came off I apologize.

Despite the many opinions on both sides of this issue,what,if anything,can GW do to rectify the situation?
The current Chaos codex ( for good or for bad) exist,as does the daemon codex,so does GW "sqaut"both codices and start fresh?,keep both and add a single Legions book?
I meen,ultamitly,what,if any thing can solve this particulare situation?
I'm of the opinion that the easiest fix would be to simply release a Legions codex,however even that seems like it has the potential to become muddled in designs problems.

@Keezus:

Most codices these days boil down to one optimal list, but doesn't mean that the others aren't somewhat competitive (to borrow Polonius' phrase) or aren't useful for fun games.

Also, many of your complaints are with a 5th ed frame of mind. Scoring units weren't the same in 4th when the codex was written (and indeed, then you could use DS'ing termis/obits or infiltrating Vet squads to score objectives).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FITZZ wrote: Despite the many opinions on both sides of this issue,what,if anything,can GW do to rectify the situation?
The current Chaos codex ( for good or for bad) exist,as does the daemon codex,so does GW "sqaut"both codices and start fresh?,keep both and add a single Legions book?
I meen,ultamitly,what,if any thing can solve this particulare situation?
I'm of the opinion that the easiest fix would be to simply release a Legions codex,however even that seems like it has the potential to become muddled in designs problems.

I think that we may only be a couple years away from a 5th ed chaos codex and I would expect it to be similar to the SM dex in that you will have Legion archetypes (read Special Characters) that will unlock many of the abilities of the old Legion sub-lists. It won't have the wargear options that 3.5 had but it won't have the restrictions either.

keezus wrote:Ozy: I agree that many different lists can be made with C:CSM - but few of those will be as effective as the Rhino Burrito rush (add filling and sauce to taste).

This is because the choices given in the codex have a few glaring issues:

1. All the troops operate in the 'close to mid' range, be it shooting or hth. They have no option for fast moving troops outside of rhinos, nor do they have any differing deployment modes for their core units.

2. The above is exacerbated by their inability to get any sort of heavy weapon density due to the new 10men:1 heavy weapons in troops and the relocation of all their heavy weapons dense units to heavy support.
This further reinforces the "up close" playstyle of Chaos.

"Rhino Burrito rush"

Also, they're not "issues", but deliberately designed-in "differentiators" to distinguish CSM from SM.

1. CSM have Raptors at a not totally unreasonable price, but you're completely right that there's no way to take JPs as Elite nor Troops. That is what makes BA unique.

2. The lack of Heavy weapons is also designed in to show how CSM are fighty, not shooty. It's also why there are no Razorbacks... However, small Noise Marine squads with Blastmasters break the 10:1 at the cost of using premium, I5 Troops this way.

Going forward, it's looking like my CSM won't have Heavies at all, aside from the Defilers.
____

FITZZ wrote: I'm of the opinion that the easiest fix would be to simply release a Legions codex,however even that seems like it has the potential to become muddled in designs problems.

I agree a Legions Codex is indeed "the easiest fix", even though it will likely focus only on the Big 4. As far as design problems go, it's no worse than anything else out of GW.

It's only as flavorless as your imagination won't allow, I think most of these issues are all in your head.

As wiser men once said:
"Purely psychosomatic,
that boy needs therapy.
Lie down on the couch! What does that mean?
Youre a nut! You're crazy in the coconut!
What does that mean? that boy needs therapy."

Ozymandias wrote:

Polonius wrote:It's reassuring to see that any attempt at being conciliatory is meet with a cheap shot.

For a guy that went on a soap box about my being disingenuous, you're being really snotty.

How was that a cheap shot? In a thread with most people saying how much they hate the new Chaos dex, when people say the same about the IG codex you reply with what I quoted. Frankly I agree with you, I just want to know why it is ok to say that to Eldar and IG players and not ok to say that to Chaos players? Is it because there are more of them and therefore they are louder?

I was not trying to be snotty, if that's how I came off I apologize.

It was, because how did you expect me to respond? I've already pointed out ad nauseum that the builds offered by the Chaos book are relatively limited when compared to the others (the whole chicken/burrito exchange). So, all it did was open the door to rehashing something that had already been discussed.

I also think that if you read all of my posts, my tone isn't one of complete dismissal towards the Chaos book. I simply think that they did the worst job of any 4.5 or beyond codices of boiling down the wooly 3rd ed stuff into a single whole. So, I agree that you can build some interesting stuff out of the book. However, first I meant that you can build interesting builds that are pretty similar to the old ones in the current ig book, something that isn't always possible with chaos. Secondly I think that number of interesting, viable builds out of the chaos book pale in comparion to eldar, SM, or IG. As has been stated, all essentially revolve around dudes in rhinos. The fixin's are many and varied (if not always tasty), but meat and potatoes of the chaos book is surprising inflexible.

So yes, your statement was correct, but inaccurate. It read as snotty because it seemed like you were ignoring all of the arguments that have been made, and seemed to focus on the fact that, yes, you can actually build an army or two out of the Chaos book that isn't boring, as if that solved everything.

Maybe I was a little touchy, but you had to know that it would provoke a response and rebuttal, if you thought about it. If not, well, I didn't mean to jump at you for posting sloppy.

It also gets back to something that I've been saying for a while now, and nobody seems to respond to: There are only two reason for this controversy. One is that the Chaos Book is actually unusually flawed, the other is that chaos players are unusually petulant. At some point, where there is smoke (a large amount of anger at a codex) there might actually be fire (something wrong with the damn book).

I disagree, Polonius. This seems less smoke and fire, and more squeeky wheel and grease (well, no grease yet).

It certainly seems that (on the internet) this book has attracted a loud following of hate but most people I know have found alternatives or, like myself, really enjoy the current edition.

BRING ON THE GREASE!

Night Lords with Khorne Berzerkers?? What the Fudge??

Those are not Night Lords. Those are marines painted blue and gold. Those blue berzerkers are not Berzerkers, they just play under their rules.

Honestly, I couldnt read anymore after this "what if?" BS. If I want to play "what if?" and make up my own rules, I just wont buy the codex. I dont need to pay 30 bucks to play an imaginary army. If I want to play blue and gold marines with blue zerkers, I would have made a black legion army.